4 ms·

>we've had drunk driving in the "bad" bucket for how many decades now? I think you'll find that outside of larger urban areas in the US, drunk driving tends to

>we've had drunk driving in the "bad" bucket for how many decades now? I think you'll find that outside of larger urban areas in the US, drunk driving tends to fall into a gray area of morality, or in some cases (in my experience, very rural locales with very little meaningful road traffic), an accepted norm. Almost nobody I know that lives in an urban US area drives drunk or finds it acceptable. This becomes more lax among my suburban friends and acquaintances. For some of my more rural acquaintances, taking a 6 pack along for consumption during a drive is typical behavior that nobody in their community even bats an eye at.

bmelton 9y ago
I think this has a lot to do with a lot of things. If I'm working in the city, it's easy for me to say "Well, I plan to drink tonight, so I'll cab to the place where I'm drinking so that I'll have to cab from the place after I'm drinking." When that place is more than a $50 Uber/Lyft/Cab ride away from the suburbs I'm coming from, the options are limited, leaving me to the effort of having to curtail the amount that I drink such that it's safe to drive home. The science I've heard mention is that you can metabolize something like 2 drinks per hour, which is a handy guideline, but lacks so much. 2 drinks of what? 3% Miller Lite isn't the same as 10% microbrews, which isn't the same as 40+% scotch or bourbon. Does that 2 drink guideline cover hard spirits in assuming the worst, or is it assuming the most common scenario of beer? I have no idea. For me, I tend to prefer drinking at home, or at Uber/Lyftable distances from my home, so that I can be safe, but yeah, everyone's guidance differs slightly, and as someone downthread mentions, relying on choice of drinking safely as judgement is impaired by the alcohol they're drinking is fraught with peril.
- sithadmin 9y ago
  It's definitely a multifacted issue. I suspect that income distribution between urban centers and other areas definitely plays a major role, as does a person's risk calculus associated with performing the act itself. As far as 'drinks per hour' guidelines go, that's usually standardized as a single unit of alcohol (e.g. 1 1.5 oz shot of 80 proof liqour OR 12 oz of a macrobrew lager OR 6 oz of a typical wine).
  - brewdad 9y ago
    Yes. I've started using a "rule of 60" for estimating an alcohol drink's impact. Alcohol % by volume x drink size in oz. A 5% beer in a 12oz bottle is equal to a 1.5 oz pour of 80 proof liquor. That 8oz snifter of 10% beer is worth 80 points. Same if you order a pint of the 5% beer instead of a bottle.
    - runamok 9y ago
      Might want to remind people that 80 proof = 40%. Thus by your examples: 5% * 12oz = 60, 40% * 1.5oz = 60, 10% * 8oz = 80,
  - erik_seaberg 9y ago
    It's genuinely more dangerous in an urban area. I grew up on a road where you might go hours without seeing a single car. At night there would be nothing to hit but utility poles and deer, and even sober drivers might hit deer.
- RealGeek 9y ago
  Useful chart for drinking limits: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/publications/brochures/BACCharts.pdf http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/publications/brochures/BACCharts...
- harimau777 9y ago
  My understanding was that a (very approximate) rule of thumb was that alcohol tends to be served in portions that are appropriate for the 2 drinks an hour rule. That is a bottle of beer, a glass of wine, a shot of vodka, a mixed drink, etc. This seems like it would work as long as you treat all of them as trending towards the middle of the alcohol content scale (i.e. treat Miller Lite and a highly alcoholic cocktail as approximately equivalent to a shot ). On the other hand I don't think it would work if you treated the ends of the scale as the same (i.e. treating Miller Lite and a highly alcoholic cocktail as equivalent).
mikestew 9y ago
I grew up in a rural area and can confirm. But I haven't lived in a rural area for a long time, so ass-u-me-d that had changed along with the changes I've seen in urban and suburban areas. Guess not. OTOH, the roads can be pretty empty in rural South Dakota.
- bsder 9y ago
  > OTOH, the roads can be pretty empty in rural South Dakota. This, I suspect, is the big difference in attitude. In a suburban area, you have a significant chance of hurting some else when you drive drunk. In a truly rural area, you are mostly likely to harm only yourself when you drive drunk.
shafyy 9y ago
Another difference I observed is San Francisco vs. Zurich (both urban areas). While in Zurich very few people I know would drink and drive, people in SF don't seem to really care about being a little tipsy. Of course, this is anecdotale.
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Different potential risks, driving with a drink or two in you as an overweight man only puts you at 0.03% BAC, not even half the limit. Commonly in parts of the midwest, people will pop a roadie while they're driving, to the point that it is part of the culture in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota.
  - shafyy 9y ago
    Yes, but it doesn't matter if you need 1 or 5 drinks to feel tipsy. When you feel tipsy, then you shouldn't drive, legal or not. You are endangering other people's lives.
- SilasX 9y ago
  If SF had Zurich’s transit system, most people wouldn’t drive, drunk or otherwise.
  - lsc 9y ago
    Historically, sure. But today? I can usually get from mountain view to san jose for the price of a drink; I think we have Softbank's continued investment to thank for that. Our transit is (probably temporarily) quite cheap, while our drinks are rather expensive.
  - shafyy 9y ago
    True. But Uber/Lyft is significantly cheaper in SF. So that doesn't really matter in this specific case.
- derda 9y ago
  Same in Germany. Of course drunk driving is not unheard of (especially when you get more rural (and also older people)), but the general attitude I experienced is a lot different then in the US. Here almost noone in my group of friends would get behind the wheel after more than one beer. And if someone would dare it would probably result in "lets call you a taxi" or "crash at my couch". When I was visiting friends in the US, a totally different picture. Almost everyone was happy to drive after a few drinks and noone did care.
baddox 9y ago
I would say that in rural areas you’ll find more acceptance of driving above the legal limit because of disagreement about how reasonable that legal limit is. I don’t think you’ll find much acceptance of “drunk driving” according to their own definition of “drunk.”

bmelton 9y ago

I think this has a lot to do with a lot of things. If I'm working in the city, it's easy for me to say "Well, I plan to drink tonight, so I'll cab to the place where I'm drinking so that I'll have to cab from the place after I'm drinking." When that place is more than a $50 Uber/Lyft/Cab ride away from the suburbs I'm coming from, the options are limited, leaving me to the effort of having to curtail the amount that I drink such that it's safe to drive home. The science I've heard mention is that you can metabolize something like 2 drinks per hour, which is a handy guideline, but lacks so much. 2 drinks of what? 3% Miller Lite isn't the same as 10% microbrews, which isn't the same as 40+% scotch or bourbon. Does that 2 drink guideline cover hard spirits in assuming the worst, or is it assuming the most common scenario of beer? I have no idea. For me, I tend to prefer drinking at home, or at Uber/Lyftable distances from my home, so that I can be safe, but yeah, everyone's guidance differs slightly, and as someone downthread mentions, relying on choice of drinking safely as judgement is impaired by the alcohol they're drinking is fraught with peril.

sithadmin 9y ago
It's definitely a multifacted issue. I suspect that income distribution between urban centers and other areas definitely plays a major role, as does a person's risk calculus associated with performing the act itself. As far as 'drinks per hour' guidelines go, that's usually standardized as a single unit of alcohol (e.g. 1 1.5 oz shot of 80 proof liqour OR 12 oz of a macrobrew lager OR 6 oz of a typical wine).
- brewdad 9y ago
  Yes. I've started using a "rule of 60" for estimating an alcohol drink's impact. Alcohol % by volume x drink size in oz. A 5% beer in a 12oz bottle is equal to a 1.5 oz pour of 80 proof liquor. That 8oz snifter of 10% beer is worth 80 points. Same if you order a pint of the 5% beer instead of a bottle.
  - runamok 9y ago
    Might want to remind people that 80 proof = 40%. Thus by your examples: 5% * 12oz = 60, 40% * 1.5oz = 60, 10% * 8oz = 80,
- erik_seaberg 9y ago
  It's genuinely more dangerous in an urban area. I grew up on a road where you might go hours without seeing a single car. At night there would be nothing to hit but utility poles and deer, and even sober drivers might hit deer.
RealGeek 9y ago
Useful chart for drinking limits: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/publications/brochures/BACCharts.pdf http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/publications/brochures/BACCharts...
harimau777 9y ago
My understanding was that a (very approximate) rule of thumb was that alcohol tends to be served in portions that are appropriate for the 2 drinks an hour rule. That is a bottle of beer, a glass of wine, a shot of vodka, a mixed drink, etc. This seems like it would work as long as you treat all of them as trending towards the middle of the alcohol content scale (i.e. treat Miller Lite and a highly alcoholic cocktail as approximately equivalent to a shot ). On the other hand I don't think it would work if you treated the ends of the scale as the same (i.e. treating Miller Lite and a highly alcoholic cocktail as equivalent).

mikestew 9y ago

I grew up in a rural area and can confirm. But I haven't lived in a rural area for a long time, so ass-u-me-d that had changed along with the changes I've seen in urban and suburban areas. Guess not. OTOH, the roads can be pretty empty in rural South Dakota.

bsder 9y ago
> OTOH, the roads can be pretty empty in rural South Dakota. This, I suspect, is the big difference in attitude. In a suburban area, you have a significant chance of hurting some else when you drive drunk. In a truly rural area, you are mostly likely to harm only yourself when you drive drunk.

shafyy 9y ago

Another difference I observed is San Francisco vs. Zurich (both urban areas). While in Zurich very few people I know would drink and drive, people in SF don't seem to really care about being a little tipsy. Of course, this is anecdotale.

StudentStuff 9y ago
Different potential risks, driving with a drink or two in you as an overweight man only puts you at 0.03% BAC, not even half the limit. Commonly in parts of the midwest, people will pop a roadie while they're driving, to the point that it is part of the culture in places like Wisconsin and Minnesota.
- shafyy 9y ago
  Yes, but it doesn't matter if you need 1 or 5 drinks to feel tipsy. When you feel tipsy, then you shouldn't drive, legal or not. You are endangering other people's lives.
SilasX 9y ago
If SF had Zurich’s transit system, most people wouldn’t drive, drunk or otherwise.
- lsc 9y ago
  Historically, sure. But today? I can usually get from mountain view to san jose for the price of a drink; I think we have Softbank's continued investment to thank for that. Our transit is (probably temporarily) quite cheap, while our drinks are rather expensive.
- shafyy 9y ago
  True. But Uber/Lyft is significantly cheaper in SF. So that doesn't really matter in this specific case.
derda 9y ago
Same in Germany. Of course drunk driving is not unheard of (especially when you get more rural (and also older people)), but the general attitude I experienced is a lot different then in the US. Here almost noone in my group of friends would get behind the wheel after more than one beer. And if someone would dare it would probably result in "lets call you a taxi" or "crash at my couch". When I was visiting friends in the US, a totally different picture. Almost everyone was happy to drive after a few drinks and noone did care.

baddox 9y ago

I would say that in rural areas you’ll find more acceptance of driving above the legal limit because of disagreement about how reasonable that legal limit is. I don’t think you’ll find much acceptance of “drunk driving” according to their own definition of “drunk.”